We’re in contact with the company, Metal Rain Tanks, out of Houston TX to inquire about shipping and to see if there are any more local options.

In the meantime, we will enjoy catching the rain we can (which is very minimal in this el Niño and Blob-impacted climate) into a metal feed trough strategically placed under the back shed roof!

We are still shopping around and looking for more local options. We don’t want a plastic rain barrel, and have limited skills with building/welding one, so any suggestions or leads would be super helpful!

Its makers said it’s engineered to outperform rooftop panels by 50-fold, and at a fraction of the cost. And this groundbreaking invention could potentially have the capability of turning an ordinary window into an electric socket.

Made up of the organic polymers carbon and hydrogen, the technology converts sun or artificial light sources into electricity when applied as a film layer to windows. Despite competition from many similar technologies not yet on the market, this innovation has stood the test of time.

For nearly 20 years, in response to global warming, numerous companies, research institutes, and federal agencies have been quietly developing and testing innovative ways to efficiently reduce greenhouse gas emissions. When the federal government began investing in carbon reducing projects in 2007, the solar industry ramped up its R&D.

]]>https://saveourskylineohio.com/2015/08/01/will-ohio-resume-renewable-energy-mandates-and-increase-taxes-on-our-poor/
Sat, 01 Aug 2015 12:46:39 +0000saveourskylineohiohttps://saveourskylineohio.com/2015/08/01/will-ohio-resume-renewable-energy-mandates-and-increase-taxes-on-our-poor/https://saveourskylineohio.com/2015/08/01/is-bigwind-part-of-our-smart-power-plan-a-12-rise-in-our-rates-is/
Sat, 01 Aug 2015 12:11:25 +0000saveourskylineohiohttps://saveourskylineohio.com/2015/08/01/is-bigwind-part-of-our-smart-power-plan-a-12-rise-in-our-rates-is/https://makeasmartcity.com/2015/08/01/translucent-solar-noise-barriers-sonobs-in-the-netherlands/
Sat, 01 Aug 2015 00:53:38 +0000Olga Breesehttps://makeasmartcity.com/2015/08/01/translucent-solar-noise-barriers-sonobs-in-the-netherlands/Form meets function. A Dutch researcher from the Eindhoven University of Technology has designed a new luminescent solar concentrator (LSC) panel which is thinner, cheaper and aesthetically pleasing. On June 18 several test panels were installed along the busy A2 highway as a pilot project for a new product which combines the need for solar energy capture with noise abatement. Michael Debije, assistant professor in the Department of Chemical Engineering and Chemistry, designed the panels to reabsorb light as they channel it to the solar arrays at their edges. The light is then transferred to conventional panels at the sides. This results in enough electricity to power 50 homes from one kilometer (0.62 miles).

The Tesla Powerwall

Source: Tesla Energy

You may have heard in the news a few months back the announcement of the Tesla Powerwall, a seemingly simple device – a battery – that promises to revolutionize the renewable energy market. Elon Musk (personal idol, real-life Tony Stark, and famed CEO and (co)founder of Zip2, PayPal, SpaceX, Tesla, and SolarCity) believes the battery will have its biggest impact in markets where electricity prices are high, such as California, with daily peaks in the evening, post-work hours. At $3,500 for the 10 kWh version, the payback period would be about 4-5 years. Economically it can be justified but from a sustainability standpoint it’s a necessary advancement if we hope to see a sustainable, low-carbon world in the near future.

What problem does this solve? I’ll try to explain briefly.

Source: Tesla Energy

Solar energy is often touted as the sole future of sustainability (but I personally believe it’s more of a component in a “portfolio” of energy sources – a topic to be discussed in a different musing). The main issue, however, is quite obvious: the sun only shines for part of the day. What happens at night, when most of us are home and actually consuming the most electricity?

Well, that is where a battery comes in. Ideally your rooftop solar PV array will produce its maximum load in the middle of the day and store the electricity in a battery, which would later provide that stored energy to your house for the rest of the night. But up to now, batteries for this type of application were not widely available and homeowners were often overcharged ($10,000+ for equivalent Powerwall) for the technology.

Source: Tesla Energy

And that’s where Mr. Musk stepped in. In his usual manner, he took an existing technology, improved it, and made it marketable. I mean, look how sleek it is! Definitely not what came to mind before (think: series and series of hooked-up car batteries). The Powerwall has already sold out through mid-2016 and the rather affordable price tag has already been exerting downward pressure on the home battery market – as Musk intended.

If you want some more technical details of the Powerwall, such as the role of the inverter, UPS backup systems, etc., then visit their website or just do a quick Google search.

The Powerwall won’t solve every problem and it won’t magically transform the market overnight, but it’s definitely a step in the right direction. Renewable energy will not reach higher market penetration until battery technology makes far greater advances in energy storage. Advancements in applications such as this will also allow the average American to “go green” and become more sustainable.

Who would have ever thought that clean renewable energy could come from a smokestack? And yet, according to our U.S. government and the biomass industry, that’s exactly what’s happening when you burn trees (biomass) for energy. I don’t know about you, but when it comes to renewable energy, I think of wind turbines and solar panels producing clean, emission-free renewable energy. While the final rulemaking process for biomass emissions is still in review, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released this memo last November from Janet McCabe to industry stakeholders, which endorses most biomass emissions as carbon neutral:

For waste-derived feedstocks, the EPA intends to propose exempting biogenic CO2 emissions from GHG BACT analyses and anticipates basing that proposal on the rationale that those emissions are likely to have minimal or no net atmospheric contributions of biogenic CO2 emissions, or even reduce such impacts, when compared with an alternate fate of disposal.

Most of us can agree with the fact that we’re facing unprecedented global climate change due to our use of fuels that emit greenhouse gases (mainly carbon) into the atmosphere. There are a few possible ways to address this global climate challenge. One way is to vastly reduce or terminate our use of carbon emitting fuel sources by transitioning to emission-free energy sources like wind, solar and tidal. We could expand on that idea by creating hyper-local communities that focus on energy efficiency and renewable energy through the use of micro-grids. That’s why the carbon emissions from biomass are so critically important, especially as we look to our future energy and transportation needs and how those choices affect our earth’s climate.

The Biomass Boondoggle

There are multiple environmental issues with burning wood for biomass energy. Burning wood (pulp, chips, trimmings, sawdust residues and whole trees) for biomass energy actually emits more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than fossil fuels. Compared to fossil fuels, woody biomass is significantly less energy efficient and you need to burn at least twice as much wood to produce the same amount of thermal energy. For example, one ton of wood pellets produce 16.5 million BTU’s of energy while one ton of #2 fuel oil produces (52% more) 33.8 million BTU’s of energy.

Burning trees for biomass is a double whammy for the environment; not only are you adding more carbon emissions than fossil fuels, but you are also removing trees that work as carbon sinks and sequester vast amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. The biomass industry claims they use low value waste wood for fuel, but overwhelming evidence shows the industry repeatedly using whole trees for biomass and wood pellet production. Similarly, the industry is not obligated to account for the immediate or future loss of carbon sequestration from harvested trees. When compared to other “free” renewable energy sources like wind and solar, biomass energy is considerably more expensive to operate and requires long-term costs for sourcing the woody biomass fuel. Likewise, using woody biomass as a fuel source for electric utility power is not always cost effective in a competitively priced energy market. Here’s an example of a biomass plant forced to shut down; it was cheaper to remain idle than trying to supply power to the grid, leaving ratepayers on the hook. The emissions from woody biomass contain high concentrations of particulates, which increase the air quality health risks to humans. Burning biomass exacerbates the problem of ocean acidification by taking locked-up terrestrial carbon (trees) and transforming it to atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is the major cause of ocean acidification. The growing U.S. biomass industry is creating an increased demand for wood, which can escalate clearcutting, deforestation, forest fragmentation, land-use changes and species habitat loss, as pointed out in this multi-disciplinary collegiate study from the Southern Environmental Law Center.
Illustration by: Brett Leuenberger

What Grows in the Forest, Stays in the Forest

The importance of forest ecosystems to store and sequester carbon is a critical part to combatting global climate change. The healthy cycle of forest growth and decay supports the cultivation of mosses and lichens, which in a recent study revealed that they are responsible for sequestering one third of the earth’s terrestrial carbon. Likewise, forests are extremely important in capturing and holding carbon in deep mineral soil. Global scientists are now promoting and implementing afforestation practices to help reduce CO2 levels and increase forest carbon sinks. In an effort to help mitigate CO2 emissions, the U.S. Forest Service is cooperatively working with state agencies in the removal and thinning of trees for wildfire prevention and as a source of biomass fuel, but evidence shows that this practice actually increases carbon emissions. This is what Oregon State University (OSU) had to say in its study:

Even if wood removed by thinning is used for biofuels it will not eliminate the concern. Previous studies at OSU have indicated that, in most of western Oregon, use of wood for biofuels will result in a net loss of carbon sequestration for at least 100 years, and probably much longer.

This forest biomass study from OSU has taken on a new importance considering that Oregon just passed a bill (SB 752) to become the first state to declare woody biomass as carbon neutral.

The Magical Carbon Neutral Machine

The EPA claims that woody biomass is carbon neutral because the industry is using waste wood that would be landfilled or incinerated and new trees can quickly regrow and reabsorb the carbon emissions made from the biomass energy in a process known as the short-timeframe carbon cycle. They also claim that fossil fuel emissions are not carbon neutral because that carbon is primarily locked up in the bedrock layer and is part of the long-timeframe carbon cycle. The EPA’s carbon accounting claims for both biomass and fossil fuel emissions can categorically be argued. First of all, the biomass carbon that is reabsorbed and sequestered by new tree growth can’t be accurately measured in a timeframe that reflects the carbon neutral point. The EPA’s overly complicated review of assessing the carbon emissions recovery period for biomass suggests a quick timeframe of less than a couple decades, while arguably others in the scientific community proclaim the carbon emissions from biomass could take upwards of 45 years to become only as bad as coal, and hundreds of years to approach carbon neutrality. Another important and overlooked issue with burning biomass is the unnatural movement of terrestrial carbon to atmospheric carbon dioxide. Our atmosphere will be in a perpetual state of having significant “carbon debt” because every day the growing biomass industry is instantly ejecting massive amounts of CO2 emissions into the air which took decades for the removed trees to sequester and store as terrestrial carbon. Just because you can sequester and regrow more trees doesn’t mean that biomass is carbon neutral; it’s the precarious location and duration of the biomass CO2 emissions in our biosphere during its uncertain carbon recovery period that poses a direct threat to our climate. The biomass CO2 emissions that are poured into our atmosphere don’t just magically disappear; those emissions have a timeline of sequestration known as the carbon recovery period. Every day a new timeline of biomass emissions with its own carbon recovery period is stacked into our atmosphere. As those emission timelines overlap, the cumulative amount of CO2 rises dramatically creating a bubble of carbon debt. Essentially, the EPA’s carbon neutral stance on woody biomass is bolstering a cycle of perpetual carbon debt, which is in direct conflict with President Obama’s latest White House press release that addresses forest biomass energy as not categorically carbon neutral. Secondly, fossil fuels are derived from plant and animal biomass and both (biomass and fossil fuels) are made up of organic carbon compounds, therefore their carbon emissions should be scientifically measured equally. Biomass and fossil fuels are both part of the ongoing natural process of carbon growth, carbon sequestration and geologic carbon reclamation that occurs within our lithosphere. Essentially the only difference between a tree branch and a piece of coal is time and pressure. Carbon is carbon; you can’t have good emissions and bad emissions, they both are major unwieldy sources of greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change and need to be treated as such.
Illustration by: Brett Leuenberger

The Dirty New Face of Renewable Energy

The carbon neutrality of woody biomass has become the means to playing a dangerous renewable energy shell game and here’s why. Presently the EPA is cooperatively working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to promote the use of woody biomass as a carbon neutral renewable energy solution to replace the carbon emissions of fossil fuels and to help achieve emission compliance for President Obama’s controversial Clean Power Plan. The EPA is also ignoring its own science that proves the high emissions of biomass, as pointed out by Glenn Hurowitz in an article published in Catapult:

Unfortunately, while EPA recognizes in its statement that burning trees for electricity can produce substantial pollution, and that it should be subject to strong carbon accounting procedures, its actual policy does little to ensure that any actual carbon accounting will occur. EPA says that states should be able to set standards for “sustainability,” but doesn’t define what amounts to sustainability. That’s a loophole big enough to drive a bulldozer through.

In the EPA’s November 2014 Revised Framework for Assessing Biogenic CO2 Emissions from Stationary Sources, they were quoted as saying:

The plant growth associated with producing many of the biomass-derived fuels can, to varying degrees for different biomass feedstocks, sequester carbon from the atmosphere. For example, America’s forests currently play a critical role in addressing carbon pollution, removing nearly 12 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions each year. As a result, broadly speaking, burning biomass-derived fuels for energy recovery can yield climate benefits as compared to burning conventional fossil fuels.

By its own admission, the EPA is promoting (more carbon emissions) the burning of our forests that are already effectively sequestering the carbon emissions from fossil fuels. This is a shell game tactic; the EPA is simply replacing emissions with emissions and calling it renewable. More importantly, it’s the change in location of these carbon emissions that becomes vitally important. You’re basically harvesting locked up terrestrial carbon (trees) and moving it to atmospheric CO2, which in turn increases global warming. The EPA makes no mistake about its intentions to foster the use of woody biomass as a primary renewable energy source for states to meet their federal clean air standards, with this quote from their revised framework assessment:

Because of the positive attributes of certain biomass-derived fuels, the EPA also recognizes that biomass-derived fuels can play an important role in CO2 emission reduction strategies. We anticipate that states likely will consider biomass-derived fuels in energy production as a way to mitigate the CO2 emissions attributed to the energy sector and include them as part of their plans to meet the emission reduction requirements of this rule and we think it is important to define a clear path for states to do so.

With the EPA green lighting the woody biomass and wood pellet industry as carbon neutral, other emission-free renewable energy industries like wind and solar stand to suffer. The biomass industry is the fastest growing renewable energy segment in the United States, and in 2014, the U.S. more than doubled its exports from the previous year to become the largest wood pellet exporter for biomass fuel in the world. Wood pellet exports are expected to increase 400% by 2019.

Illustration by: Brett Leuenberger

The biomass industry continues to rely on the EPA’s flawed science and blindly promotes biomass as carbon neutral with a concerted public greenwashing campaign. For instance, the forest industry recently published biomass101.org, which tries to discredit the findings of entities that expose the carbon emission problems with burning biomass. The industry and stakeholders clearly stand to gain monetarily if biomass is promoted as a carbon neutral source of renewable energy. Instead of the EPA grandstanding its attention on the carbon neutrality of woody biomass, they should be measuring the actual amount of biomass used at the source and its future carbon sequestration loss, along with the measured carbon emissions generated from the smokestack to determine if it’s a viable energy source that actually reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Replacing the carbon emissions from fossil fuels with the higher carbon emissions of biomass is not carbon neutral and does nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, if anything it makes it worse. Woody biomass energy has the highest carbon emissions and is one of the dirtiest forms of energy on the planet, and yet the EPA and the biomass industry continually promote it as carbon neutral. Fortunately there are many vitally important renewable and energy efficiency industries that are working diligently to support and commercialize emission-free energy sources that foster the reversal of global climate change while ensuring our long-term energy and transportation needs.

Canned tomatoes, shopping receipts and that “new” car or sweet new kitchen smell are all everyday things that can be hazardous to our health. Seemingly harmless activities and products are exposing us to a toxic suite of dangerous chemicals which have a number of known or potential negative health impacts such as skin irritations, allergies, reproductive and endocrine defects and even cancer.

We live in a toxic world, exposed to a vast range of chemicals in our food, products and environments, many of which, the immediate and long-term effects of, are unknown. But by staying informed and by being a conscious, educated consumer, you can protect your own and your families health, and as a bonus help out the environment as well because many of these chemicals can have the same impacts on animals and fishes that they do on us.

Canned goods and thermal paper shopping receipts can contain BPA a potent hormone mimicking agent that disrupts our endocrine system, the new car smell and the greasy film inside the car windscreen is likely from plasticisers also endocrine disruptors, the sweet smell of a new kitchen or cupboard is either formaldehyde, a cancer producing wood binder or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from solvents in wood lacquer that are central nervous system and liver toxins.

So how can you avoid the myriad of chemicals you can be exposed to everyday, when you cannot see them, often cant smell them and they are potentially, well, everywhere?

Here are the top 10 helpful tips to help you detoxify your body and your environment.

Buy certified green products. Support manufacturers, companies and supermarkets that produce cleaner and greener products that have been third party certified as preferred products. Such certification is your proof that the products are the healthy, green products they claim to be;

If you want to search for products that have been third party verified or certified as healthy and low environmental impact look for all kinds of products for yourself and your home on Ecospecifier.com.au

Check out certified healthy and sustainable product ratings for your DIY home project products on GlobalGreenTag.com;

Avoid plastic water bottles. Use reusable bottles like stainless steel and glass;

Eat less fish. Did you know that many toxic chemicals are stored in the fatty tissue of carnivorous fish and toxins like mercury from industrial pollution and coal fired electricity bioaccumulate in predatory fish;

Minimise the use of insecticide and don’t use ‘insect bombs’ or residual surface sprays;

If you use air fresheners, use only natural plant essence derived oils;

Don’t use chemical disinfectant surface sprays. Usedilute eucalyptus or thymol if you need to disinfect.

Detox your body. Anti-oxidants are a great way to protect yourself from some of the effects of the daily chemical load on your body. Make sure your diet and supplements maintain a daily regimen of a broad spectrum of antioxidants like Vitamin C and E.

Explore more about the product ranges that have been eco-certified and listed by Ecospecifier, by using the Product Search Engine on Ecospecifier Global: http://www.ecospecifier.com.au

Join us in more conversations about green products and sustainability issues on our social media pages:

Join our Social Media Honour Roll – support the switch to green products

Like, Comment and Share our blogs and posts on your social media pages … and we will send your name out to more than 16,000 subscribers via our monthly Ecospecifier Global Newsletter, which you can SIGN UP TO HERE

See which stellar individuals, businesses and networks made the latest Honour Roll on Twitter and Facebook HERE We salute you in helping us educate and help more people #MaketheSwitch to #EcoResponsible products.

Name(required)

Email(required)

Website

Comment(required)

]]>https://usegoodstuff.co.nz/2015/07/28/power-to-the-people/
Tue, 28 Jul 2015 04:50:50 +0000UseGoodStuffhttps://usegoodstuff.co.nz/2015/07/28/power-to-the-people/A couple of months ago you may have heard of an announcement from a company called Tesla; the ‘Powerwall’! It’s a good name, it sounds like something Donald Trump would build his mansions out of. But in actuality, it is very large battery you can install in your own home.

Your instant reaction may be one of bewilderment, but really, this is precisely the type of innovation we need. We need to advance the cause of renewable energy through installing solar panels and wind turbines (and any other future renewable energy source yet to be developed) but the times of optimum sunlight do not align with the times of high power consumption; the morning and evening. The wind is not always blowing at these times either. So, by capturing this abundant energy in the middle of the day and storing it for the evening, Tesla are providing another important step in the proliferation of sustainable energy. In fact, this issue could be argued to be the largest problem with renewable energy; it must be used immediately as we have no efficient way to store it. By contrast, fossil fuels are so brilliant because of their portability – they are energy on demand. It is all stored in their chemical bonds, waiting patiently to give us heat and movement and light at our whim. All we have to do is burn it. At present, the cheapest way of storing non-fossil fuel energy for small-scale personal use is in lithium ion batteries. Electric cars are crammed with them (adding considerable weight), laptops have them, smartphones have them, and now with Tesla’s launching of the ‘Powerwall’, homes are about to have them too. If you have ever owned a laptop or a smartphone then I can safely assume you have complained at some point about your battery life. In doing so you are hitting on arguably the most pertinent issue surrounding renewable energy – storage.

The next logical question to ask for those interested in sustainability must be: how sustainable are lithium ion batteries? First of all, we should look at the theoretical answer. Unlike fossil fuels, it is possible to use lithium in a sustainable way. The Earth’s crust is full of lithium, and given that it is a metal, we can recycle it. This means that once we have enough lithium in production to meet the world’s demand, we would not have to extract any more, just recycle what we already have. And lithium is not the only metal we can make batteries out of, but it does appear to be the best. Reports on the present life-cycle of lithium ion batteries do appear to have some discrepancies in their findings, and I would encourage you to look this up for yourself – Just google “sustainability of lithium ion batteries”. There are plenty of papers that investigate this topic. But there is little doubt that it is possible to have a sustainable life-cycle for lithium and this makes lithium infinitely better than fossil fuels for energy use and a sustainable option in their own right.

The next issue to look at is then the sustainability of solar panels. And wind turbines. And everything! You get the idea. To be sustainable you must investigate the sustainability of every new alternative to see if it is an improvement on the status quo. And in a world where the status quo remains to be fossil fuels, it almost always is. But let me help by providing links to a few articles for your own perusal. This one from the National Geographic has a good overview of the sustainability of solar panels as production of them increases at exponential rates. And how about one more from The Guardian on the current state of lithium ion batteries. That should be enough for now. This type of scrutiny may make you pessimistic, but it should have the opposite effect! The fact that we are so stringently analysing all the new technologies that offer alternatives to fossil fuels is a cause for hope. We are constantly improving our technologies, refining them, making them as sustainable as we possibly can. The cause for pessimism is to be found in the governmental support still so readily given to the fossil fuel industry and the lack of investment in research and development by comparison. But if we inform ourselves and demand better from our governments they will respond!

Personally, I believe the largest problem is how to displace fossil fuels from our vast network of travel. Planes, trucks, and cars dominate our transportation system. With much of our national grid’s energy supply coming from reasonably environmentally sound sources such as hydroelectric dams (over 70% of energy is from this in New Zealand) and nuclear power stations, I believe the reason for becoming more self-sufficient in our energy production lies not in displacing our national grid from fossil fuel reliance, but in freeing up our national grid to supply the energy needed for transportation. We need to replace our fleet of combustion and jet engines with something more sustainable. Whether that is through batteries, hydrogen powered cars, maglev trains, solar powered planes, or any other option, we will need power stations to charge batteries, energy to scrape hydrogen from whatever it has attached itself too, electricity to power the electromagnets used to levitate trains. We will need the vast amounts of energy provided by the national grid to power the future of transport that we so desperately need to usher in now.

The exciting thing about all this is that research is still taking place and new technologies are still being developed. There is much to be cautious about with this new announcement from Tesla, but at least it opens up new possibilities. The concept can be improved upon if the exciting developments in battery research come to fruition. We could have tiny batteries that take 12 minutes to recharge and can be recharged thousands of times instead of large lithium batteries with their limited life-span of less than a decade. We could be travelling on maglev trains that levitate above the ground to minimise friction and allow for super-economical travel at eye-watering speeds. We could have solar powered planes using the abundant power of the sun above the clouds flying us across the world. We literally have a world of opportunities but we must value science and technology in order for them to become a reality. Investors are not so interested if they see no profits for decades, but we as a society must realise that we have no option. We must realise the urgency of peak oil and climate change, embrace the logic of sustainable lifestyles, and realise the excitement of travelling on levitating trains and solar powered planes!

– James

]]>https://codenamelavagreen.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/los-angeles-cleantech-calendar-2015-august/
Mon, 27 Jul 2015 18:35:47 +0000johndmohttps://codenamelavagreen.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/los-angeles-cleantech-calendar-2015-august/Welcome to the August, 2015 Cleantech Calendar of events of interest to entrepreneurs, start-up executives, investors, service professionals and community leaders around Southern California and beyond. These are the events, conferences and programs that focus on clean energy, sustainable development, reducing environmental impacts and highlighting progress. Check back periodically for updates. This is the slow season for conferences and events (but not for the curator which is why this is late!) but what is out there is worth investigating including the wonderful Women In Green Forum, Fleet Technology Expo and Pathway 2050!

Jul 28 Update: CHBC Summer Summit added. Thanks, Mark!

July 29 – 30 – Following the success of the First Annual West and East Coast Microgrid Conferences, the 2015 West Coast Microgrid Conference continues to provide a platform for public and private sector professionals to demonstrate and discuss their successful microgrid projects and lessons learned. Presentations will cover current deployments on alternative islanding philosophies, enabling technologies, successful design and architecture, microgrid economics and the regulatory landscape. New topics to be discussed at this year’s program include conducting proper cost-benefit analysis, integrating renewables to a high penetration, showcasing different methodologies for seamless islanding versus open transition, strategizing how to get assets on the balance sheet and propose it to management, cyber security, demand response efforts with microgrid capabilities, and more. Irvine Marriott, Orange County, CA.

July 29 – 30 – California Hydrogen Business Council (CHBC) Summer Summit will focus on two key issues that are important to California’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while increasing the role of renewables in our energy portfolio. Hydrogen and fuel cell technology will be part of the portfolio producing energy that is clean, quiet and compatible with existing transportation and stationary power generation needs. SoCal Gas Energy Resource Center, Downey, CA.

July 29 – 30 – The EV Roadmap 8 Conference has established itself as one of the leading electric vehicle conferences in the United States. Founded by Portland General Electric and Portland State University, and now produced by Drive Oregon, the conference provides a “graduate course” in electric vehicle deployment. We believe that widespread electric vehicle adoption requires a supportive “ecosystem” of stakeholders, from utilities and local governments to vehicle OEMs, charging providers, interest groups and drivers. The EV Roadmap Conference brings all of these stakeholders together in a highly interactive format to explore emerging trends, share best practices, and map the road ahead. World Trade Center, Portland, OR.

July 30 – PortTech hosts a Phase 1 SBIR/STTR Workshop featuring Martin Klechner III, PhD. Attend this workshop to learn how to write successful proposals to any of the 11 government agencies that run Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs. San Pedro, 1:00 – 5:00 PM

August 5 – 6 – Battery Power 2015 is an international conference highlighting the latest developments impacting mobile and portable battery systems for consumer and commercial products, including the Internet of Everything, power tools, smart phones, tablets, laptops and medical devices. The 13th annual event will be held at the Hyatt Tech Center, Denver, CO

August 8 – 13 – The 12th Annual American Renewable Energy Day (AREDAY): a deep retreat with global leaders in renewable energy and climate change mitigation. This is America’s premiere global think-tank and networking event featuring Clean Energy World leaders in finance, investment, government, the public and private sectors. Presentations, performances, film screenings and stimulating cross-sector dialogue. As part of the program the American Renewable Energy Institute (AREI), in partnership with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), presents Startup Green, a two-day green innovation and accelerator program. Westin Snowmass Lodge, Snowmass Village, CO

August 12 – The Clean Technology Council monthly meeting features Dr. Jim Stewart’s Healing the Earth with Seaweed Forests, using biomass from the ocean to produce renewable energy. Dr. Stewart and PODenergy cultivate and harvest ocean kelp forests and produce biomethane to be used in place of fossil fuels. The process sequesters CO2, recycles nutrients and improves biodiversity in near shore environments. Total Wine & More, Thousand Oaks, 5:30 – 7:30 PM

August 20 – Pathway to 2050 is Advanced Energy Economy’s annual Sacramento event that brings together an influential group of advanced energy business leaders and state policy-makers to discuss opportunities to accelerate California’s economy through the growth of advanced energy. Sacramento Convention Center, 9:00 AM – 4:30 PM

August 24 – 26 – The Fleet Technology Expo is for all fleet types that are looking for ways to improve operational efficiency. Educational sessions include strategies on reducing fuel use and maintenance costs to optimizing fleet software and data to alternative-fuel adoption. With additional sessions focused on emerging technologies, a huge Ride & Drive Event and an expo hall with the latest vehicles, equipment, software and other tools, Fleet Technology Expo provides attendees the means for smart and efficient fleet management. Long Beach Convention Center

August 26 – The 6th Annual Women in Green Forum is the premier network and professional conference series for women in environmental careers, highlighting the leaders of the environmental movement. The Forum brings together an international audience of women focused on environmental issues, including academic researchers, business experts, energy analysts, and technology developers. The WIGF will also appeal to regulatory agencies involved in developing the policies and legislation which will further the development and propagation of green technologies on our roads, in our homes and at our schools. TreePeople Campus, Beverly Hills, 8:00 AM – 6:00 PM

Green LAVA is the Strategic Interest Group of the Los Angeles Venture Association focused on opportunities and challenges coincident with the design, development and deployment of sustainable products, services and businesses. Green LAVA is generously supported by Stradling, LLP.

]]>https://10000milegirl.com/2015/07/27/carbon-isnt-a-girls-best-friend/
Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:25:09 +000010000milegirlhttps://10000milegirl.com/2015/07/27/carbon-isnt-a-girls-best-friend/Carbon… it’s the chemical element that diamonds are made of, but it is far from being a girls (or boy’s) best friend… Why is this? Because when we use carbon fuels we release CO2 into our atmosphere and the world suffers :(

Today 10000milegirl’s new sustainability section I am going to look at the first One Planet Living principle – Zero Carbon. :) I’m going to define what Zero carbon means as a sustainability principle, and then going to explore a few ideas on how we can apply Zero Carbon as principle to live a more sustainable lifestyle on a personal level.

Climate change is kind of one of those do-not-bring-up-at-the-dinner-table topics in Australian politics at the moment. I will confess that I am completely baffled at how any educated person, can truly believe that climate change is some kind of conspiracy theory dreamt up by people in white coats. To me it is akin to refusing to believe that the world isn’t flat, but anyway….

There has been a recent global sustainability trend towards reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. Zero carbon is different from carbon neutral, which is probably the current political weasel word most associated with this core sustainability principle. Zero carbon initiatives are ones which do not produce any CO2 in their development and operation.

Carbon positive residential architecture

Let’s start with the ideal. Earlier this year Australia’s first carbon positive pre-fabricated home. Carbon positive is carbon zero on crack – buildings that create more energy than they need are carbon positive. The house is orientated north to take advantage of the sun, has solar panels on a grass covered roof and floor to ceiling windows allowing maximum light and heat in during winter. Reportedly the house does not need air-conditioning or heating. This sounds almost too good to be true. Because let’s face it when it’s 40 degrees and you are delirious from no sleep, it is near impossible for even for the hard-core sustainability junkie to resist the cool saving grace of the air-con.. You can read more about the house and it’s design process here.

Now whether or not we believe the claims that some clever person has designed a building that does not need air-con in 40 degrees (of which I remain a stubborn sceptic), it’s really not such a surprise that such a significant amount of household emissions are attributed to heating or cooling. I guess one of the most simple things we can do to live by the personal sustainability principle of zero carbon is to limit our use of heating and cooling. So go sit in a paddling pool in summer, or just try and have a fan on in the room you are hanging out in instead of cooling all 13 rooms in your house, and in winter use hot water bottles and put a beanie on instead of using the air conditioning unit’s + degrees function as readily as you’d increase the volume on your favourite TV show. Simple measures, but effective!

Renewable energy

Unfortunately when it comes to renewable energy, this is something that we have less of an influence on at an individual level. The consumer rule of sustainability (that if you make a conscious choice as a consumer not to use a non-renewable product that there will eventually be a shift towards a more renewable one, due to the supply changing to reflect the consumer demand) doesn’t really apply here as when i comes to energy in Australia there no real opportunity to boycott energy that comes from an unrenewable source. I guess at this level all we can really do as individuals is to shut down the haters who are under the misguided impression that windfarms somehow make you sick (!?!? in other news.. wtf .. why do people even think that!?), support the development of renewable energy technology and legislation that makes it a thing, and look at options like installing solar panels on your roof, because let’s face it the high UV rays in Australia ain’t going anywhere!

]]>

https://acrowephotography.com/2015/07/27/more-time-at-sea/
Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:13:06 +0000ACrowePhotographyhttps://acrowephotography.com/2015/07/27/more-time-at-sea/Here are a few more shots from the past few months at sea. I’ve seen some good weather fronts so I thought I’d try to capture them as best as I could. Here’s what I got.

The view from the river including Talacre Light House

Some good patterns are made from the wake of other vessels on a calm day.

Minimalist during the fog

Occasional visits from Dolphins

Stunning sunsets

And some good cloud formations

]]>https://woolleygreenhouse.wordpress.com/2015/07/26/wood-stove-2/
Sun, 26 Jul 2015 19:15:00 +0000Jessiehttps://woolleygreenhouse.wordpress.com/2015/07/26/wood-stove-2/We visited the Craft Stove store in Mount Vernon this weekend and really appreciated their friendly approach and expert advice! In fact, they helped us to finalize our decision on the wood stove we will install in our living room.

We decided that a more classic-looking stove (opposed to the lovely modern stove by JØtul that we really liked) would be more appropriate for our space; it has a longer burn time, plus it’s more functional with ample space on the top of the stove for cooking and heating water. Pacific Energy is made locally (whereas JØtul stoves come from Norway). We learned that if we order our PE stove before August, they are offering a 7% discount on the purchase … so we’d better get our flooring completed, fast!

Here’s a photo of the spot in our living area where the stove will go. We marked it out with tape (the outer lines will be the tiled area serving as the hearth pad.

What do you think about this choice of stove? Can you see it in the space?

First, people need access to energy to leave poverty behind. But the energy sector also has a very high potential for reducing poverty while making “green” gains.
However, the electricity challenge remains daunting. In Ethiopia, with a population of 91 million people, 68 million are living in the dark. Without electricity children cannot do homework at night, people cannot run competitive businesses, and countries cannot power their economies.
This is why access to sustainable energy is a development goal in itself. According to the latest data, more poor people are gaining access to electricity at a faster rate than ever before. But the gains in renewables and progress in efficiency are too slow. Almost 3 billion still cook with polluting fuels like kerosene, charcoal and dung.
The second critical area for a sustainable and inclusive growth shift is responsible resource management.
The fishery sector, for example, holds many opportunities for smart and sustainable resource management.
A well-managed “blue” economy can ensure food security, promote sustainable tourism, and build resilience. Ineffective fish-stock management and illegal fishing waste $75 billion to $125 billion of global output annually, undermining food security and forgoing revenue.
Indonesia has more than 2.6 million fishermen. It is the world’s second-largest producer of wild-capture fish.
If it improves governance of the fisheries sector and invests in large scale maritime transport and trade infrastructure, it can double fish production by the year 2019.
Governance is the third area which needs urgent attention. For many countries, this is the biggest challenge.
Estimates suggest that illegal logging generates approximately $10 billion to $15 billion annually worldwide.
This is a problem of implementing existing regulations or designing better laws. And it is a global issue, rife in many resource-rich countries.
Improving transparency and monitoring is key. Government agencies often don’t know the extent to which sectors are sustainable and which natural resources are being depleted.
The energy sector, for example, needs more and better data on simple energy use and emissions. This comprehensive “green accounting” is currently lacking.
But it is also a matter of leadership, building consensus, taking on vested interests and juggling trade-offs to make the shift from ‘dirty’ and exclusive to sustainable and inclusive growth.
So how can we overcome the obstacles to making growth sustainable and inclusive?
There are many who fear that greening growth is too expensive, could slow output, or should concern only high-income countries. This fear is short-sighted. Sustainable growth is neither unaffordable nor is it technically out of reach.
But it comes with challenges, including large up-front costs and long-term financing of 15 to 25 years. Few developing countries have suitable capital markets or banking sectors.
Improving the energy mix, for example, will reduce both environmental and fiscal risks. Turkey drastically reduced the share of oil in favor of gas. Thailand has decreased its dependency on petroleum products, from two-thirds to a third.
Another challenge is cost recovery and the right policy environment that ensures we are not only building schools, but also improve education. No power station is of use if the utility company is operating at a massive loss. Few infrastructure projects can charge at full cost. So we should find ways to ease cost recovery, while keeping services affordable for low-income families and communities.
We need to use our opportunities wisely. From 2011 to 2012, investments in clean technology in developing countries increased by 19%. And 90% of clean technology businesses increased their revenue even during the global economic downturn.
China has grown by double digits for decades, but lost a staggering 9% of its expected GDP to “brown growth.” In response, China is shifting economic activity to innovation and higher value-added production.
East Asia could take the lead on green development. Cambodia and Vietnam have integrated green growth plans into economic policies. Thailand’s most recent multi-year development plan includes a goal to reduce energy intensity by 25% by the year 2030.
Others can learn from these experiences. The good news is that more and more countries, developed and developing countries, now understand that their success will depend on how they will grow, not just by how much.
This blog is based on a speech delivered in June 2015.

By 2040, the world's power-generating capacity mix will have transformed: from today's system composed of two-thirds fossil fuels to one with 56% from zero-emission energy sources. Renewables will command just under 60% of the 9,786GW of new generating capacity installed over the next 25 years, and two-thirds of the $12.2 trillion of investment. • Economics – rather than policy – will increasingly drive the uptake of renewable technologies. All-in project costs for wind will come down by an average of 32% and solar 48% by 2040 due to steep experience curves and improved financing. Wind is already the cheapest form of new power generation capacity in Europe, Australia and Brazil and by 2026 it will be the least-cost option almost universally, with utility-scale PV likely to take that mantle by 2030.

• Over 54% of power capacity in OECD countries will be renewable energy capacity in 2040 – from a third in 2014. Developed countries are rapidly shifting from traditional centralised systems to more flexible and decentralised ones that are significantly less carbon-intensive. With about 882GW added over the next 25 years, small-scale PV will dominate both additions and installed capacity in the OECD, shifting the focus of the value chain to consumers and offering new opportunities for market share.

• In contrast, developing non-OECD countries will build 287GW a year to satisfy demand spurred by economic growth and rising electrification. This will require around $370bn of investment a year, or 80% of investment in power capacity worldwide. In total, developing countries will build nearly three times as much new capacity as developed nations, at 7,460GW – of which around half will be renewables. Coal and utility-scale PV will be neck and neck for additions as power-hungry countries use their low-cost domestic fossil-fuel reserves in the absence of strict pollution regulations.

• Solar will boom worldwide, accounting for 35% (3,429GW) of capacity additions and nearly a third ($3.7 trillion) of global investment, split evenly between small- and utility-scale installations: large-scale plants will increasingly out-compete wind, gas and coal in sunny locations, with a sustained boom post 2020 in developing countries, making it the number one sector in terms of capacity additions over the next 25 years.

• The real solar revolution will be on rooftops, driven by high residential and commercial power prices, and the availability of residential storage in some countries. Small-scale rooftop installations will reach socket parity in all major economies and provide a cheap substitute for diesel generation for those living outside the existing grid network in developing countries. By 2040, just under 13% of global generating capacity will be small-scale PV, though in some countries this share will be significantly higher.

• In industrialised economies, the link between economic growth and electricity consumption appears to be weakening. Power use fell with the financial crisis but has not bounced back strongly in the OECD as a whole, even as economic growth returned. This trend reflects an ongoing shift to services, consumers responding to high energy prices and improvements in energy efficiency. In OECD countries, power demand will be lower in 2040 than in 2014.

• The penetration of renewables will double to 46% of world electricity output by 2040 with variable renewable technologies such as wind and solar accounting for 30% of generation – up from 5% in 2014. As this penetration rises, countries will need to add flexible capacity that can help meet peak demand, as well as ramp up when solar comes off-line in the evening. More

]]>https://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/blogging-catch-up-the-consequences-of-the-tory-election-win/
Wed, 22 Jul 2015 21:40:56 +0000daryan12https://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/blogging-catch-up-the-consequences-of-the-tory-election-win/I’m in the process of preparing for a house move, so I’ve not been blogging much recently. Even so I have been keeping up on my personal blog. So I thought it might be a good idea to re-blog a couple of the stories that caught my eye over the last few months, in particular those relating to the fall out from the recent UK election.

Figure 2: Companies will be allowed to frack under homes without the homeowners permission

It has been suggested that being near a wind farm mightimpact on property prices by an average of 2-5%, or perhaps even 12% in the worse case scenario. Although another study suggests no significant correlation (my take on this is it probably depends, if there’s lots of property available, a buyers market, house prices might be effected as buyers are more choosy, but if the reverse is the case, as it often is in the UK, there’s no effect).

However if someone fracks under your home, forget about selling it…..ever! Already some near fracking operations are complaining of this very thing. They can’t sell their home, can’t move house, they are stuck where they are next to fracking operation.

And there is significant doubt as to whether the shale gas reserves of the UK are even economically viable, particularly given events in the US, where shale gas operators are loosing their shirts. Already its speculated that US shale gas output might well peak by the end of decade. The Tories are in effect committing the UK to an energy policy in the form of a new dash for gas, but in the blind.

And let’s not forget about climate change. This amounts to a complete U-turn on the last 25 years of UK energy policy, a U-turn which was launched with little warning, one which will probably send the signal (as I speculated in a prior post) to the power industry to halt all investment in energy….keeping in mind that all the fracking in the world will be little use without power plants to burn it in. What the energy industry needs is not some get rich quick scheme, but a long term energy plan for them to work around. These proposals offer no such promises.

The environment minster Amber Rudd (pro-nuclear, from the same district as Dungeness NPP) openly admits this hypocrisy, but dodges the wider hypocrisy that she’s cutting subsidies to renewables on the grounds that they are now “mature” while still shovelling money into the bottomless pit called nuclear, an industry whom the government has been funding at a considerable expense ( exceeding any subsidy to renewables), for the best part of 60 years. Exactly when is nuclear going to be able to function without a subsidy? When hell freezes over seems to be the answer!

Figure 3: Subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear (in this example, the US) have long exceeded any offered to renewables [Source: DBL Investor Capital, based on DoE data, via Cleantechica.org (2011)]

When pressured on this point she then claimed that renewables are the “wrong” sort of electricity. Ya, they sort of energy that doesn’t buy her a bigger house or include a few brown envelopes if you know what I mean! ;) And as I’ve pointed out before, the whole “intermittency” issue is something of a red herring, as nuclear also needs backing up (indeed there is an urgent need to add extra energy storage capacity to back up Hinkley C and billions have been committed to doing this, notably by expanding Ben Cruchan). And there are plenty of energy storage options available, as I discussed in a recent article.

The reality I’m afraid is, that the Tories are ideologically opposed to renewables. Anyone in this industry has good reason to fear for their prospect’s for the next 5 years.

Brexit may mean bis-exit

And of course its not just renewables who are in trouble thanks to the Tories. The general view of the engineering community to the Tory EU referendum and the risk it raises of Brexit would be something along the lines of “have the rest of you gone mad or what?”. EU membership is crucial to trade they argue. While it is true that the head of JCB did back Brexit, this was taken by many of his colleagues as a sign that he’s slightly out of touch.

Figure 4: Very few UK companies think Brexit would be a good idea (Source: Public affairs 2.0), so why is it on the agenda?

The pro-exit camp are often deluded into thinking that the UK is so important to the EU that we can drive a hard bargain and get a better deal with the EU (and other countries) outside the union, for example pointing to the large amounts of cross channel trade, about 50% of UK overseas trade is with the EU, about £11.8 bn in exports and £19.7 bn in imports.

However this has to put in the context of the EU’s total trade of 1.7 trillion euro’s and imports of 1.6 trillion. Yes UK trade with the EU might be worth 50% of our trade, but its just 1% of the EU’s total trade!

In the event of a break down in negotiations post Brexit, who do you think will blink first? the British delegation worried about losing 50% of trade, or the EU worried about losing 1%? The UK will be over a barrel in such negotiations, as they will also find themselves when negotiating with the US or China. Merkel could force Cameron to endure some sort of bush-tucker trial and he’d happily eat frogs legs or snails, perhaps get him to drink that awful Berliner Kindl beer, and yet he’d still sign anything they put in front of him. He’d have no choice!

Already there are signs that businesses are positioning themselves for Brexit. In the back pages of the engineering mag’s you’ll hear all sorts of stories, for example that Jaguar is building new factories, not in the UK (while the Castle Bromwich site is full, they’ve plenty of space at other sites) but overseas in Asia, Turkey or the EU. And this is by no means a one off, what’s left of UK automotive manufacturing would be in dire straits in the event of Brexit. Rolls Royce and Airbus, have not been quiet about their views on Brexit and its again worth noting that they seem to be either holding off on key investment decisions or have already decided to build new factories overseas. Even a recent announcement regarding HSBC had a Brexit angle.

The danger of course being, that all of these move will leave major corporations with essentially one foot already out of the UK, making it very easy for them to simply move completely out of the UK if (as predicted) there are major issues post an EU referendum.

Heathrow

Figure 5: Controversy over Heathrow is nothing new

An interesting piece here from the BBC about the long running saga of choosing the next airport for London. Would you believe that committee after committee has been debating this matter since the Roskill Commission in 1971! They recommended a new airport on a greenfield site in Buckinghamshire. Then, as now, the government rejected this proposal and fudged the issue. And successive governments have been fudging it ever since.

So with that in mind you can understand why this week’s Airports commission report went down like a lead balloon. The problem here is that politicians keeping asking for an answer to a simple question and then not liking the answer they get back.

Expansion of Gatwick or building a new airport in the Thames estuary comes with numerous difficulties, not least of those cost, but also the issue that such an airport will be in the wrong place. Any replacement for Heathrow will serve not just London but a large chuck of England, and the bulk of people in England live either north or west of the Thames, so an airport tucked away in the South East corner of the country will necessitate a change of trains in London and a journey across London, something that will automatically add 1-3 hours onto any journey time.

This is the whole reason why the Roskill commission picked a site north of the capital. The present Airports commission, perhaps recognising the impracticality of this option went for the next best thing, which was to expand Heathrow.

My own view is that instead of expanding Heathrow, just make sure its integrated into the HS2 network, as this will eliminate the need for commuter flights to Heathrow, freeing up capacity. Furthermore, as HS2 passes close to Manchester and Birmingham airports, it offers the alternative of expanding them instead and offering a fast connection time to London, Heathrow and the rest of the country.

Figure 6: An interchange loop between Heathrow and HS2 would go along way to relieving bottlenecks, as well as eliminating the need for short haul flights to Heathrow

Its also worth remembering that much of Heathrow is given over to cargo. Do the parcels really care where they land? Can’t we just take one of a number of airfields near London (or take over Luton or Oxford airport), turn it into a dedicated cargo handling facility (again ensuring good connection to the rail network as well as the motorways) and redirect all the cargo flights away from Heathrow.

But, like I said, the problem is that no matter what answer they come up with, its going to be unpopular with someone. The Heathrow HS2 link for example has been killed off by the usual NIMBY-ish reasons, indeed Gatwick expansion is also resisted by various NIMBY’s in that part of the country.

Ultimately the government needs to realise that part of their job is to make unpopular discussions. So either they need to disappoint someone by expanding Heathrow, or building a new airport to the North West of London. Or re-route HS2. Or do nothing and point out to anyone in London that wants to complain about how awkward air travel is in London, or that prices are so expensive and the airports so inaccessible, well we had plans to fix this, but you objected to them!

Railway cuts

The Tories also promised billions to help upgrade railway lines in the UK, all as part of their election plans for a “northern power house”. Needless to say, that promise didn’t last very long. But I have to give the Tories credit. Most governments would at least go through the motions of pretending to keep their election promises, for a year or two anyway, then act shocked and surprised when the programme they’d badly managed and starved of funds failed.

Figure 7: Britain has some of the highest railway ticket prices in the world….and one of the poorest rail services. All thanks to the miracle of privatisation!

Certainly it is true that there is a desperate need to upgrade the railway lines of Northern England. New lines have to be built to ease overcrowding, as well a long delayed completion of countrywide electrification (yes less than half of the UK’s railway network is electrified!). Taking a train in that part of the world is like going through a time warp. It takes so long to get from, say Liverpool to Sheffield or Leeds to Hull, you’d swear they still used steam trains. But any sort of meaningful upgrade of systems here was always going to be a major job, as big as HS2 itself.

But frankly anyone who honestly believed that the Tories, a party who have been screwing over northern England since the 1800’s, were going to spend tens of billions on the north, well I’ve got some magic beans you might want to buy! This was clearly an election ploy to steal a few lib dem seats.

Anyway, one of the things that Abellio did was to promise that they’d buy in new trains. However the IMECHE magazine has suggested, as has the Scottish Herald, that quite a few of these will be refurbished Intercity 125’s, a type of British rail era train set. So it would seem a “new” train to the Dutch is to slap a coat of paint on something you’ve pulled out of railway bone yard. Dressing up mutton as lamb doesn’t quite cut it, this is dressing up haggis and calling it caviar!

Figure 8: The cab of an Intercity 125 in the Yorkshire Railway museum. To the Dutch this museum exhibit counts as a new train!

The IMECHE is also of course strongly behind HS2. However in recent additions, they’ve been recognising that there is still scepticism from large sections of the public. However they do point out that the major question critics fail to answer is, if not HS2 what else? The UK has an antiquated and inefficient railway system that most Eastern European countries would be ashamed of.

All in all, continuing the current policy of sticky plasters on a leaky dam isn’t going to cut it. New trains need to be bought in to increase speeds, relieve overcrowding and provide greater comfort. Stations need to be upgraded, after all we’re still using an infrastructure largely designed by the Victorians when the population was a fraction of today’s. In short, its time for some difficult and ultimately expensive spending decisions to be made. Or we’ll be still being trucked around on creaky overcrowded railway carriages older than the majority of the people sitting in them.

Well one innovation getting some recent attention is that of solar cells relying on Perovskite rather than silicon, with a British firm, Oxford PV, at the forefront of developments….well until the Tories run them out of town (you know how pro-business they are!).

What is interesting about the Perovskite panels is that they offer the opportunity for significantly enhanced efficiencies, particularly if used in tandem with a layer of silicon based panels. Also they offer a much lower environmental impact. The environmental impact of solar panels is often exaggerated by critics, who often ignore the fact that far more heavy metals are emitted by fossil fuel plants. That said, there is certainly a desire to cut those numbers further, particularly if the result offers yet another opportunity for major cuts in production costs.

Another innovative idea is bladeless wind turbines. These rely on the principle of resonance to keep the turbines turning, without the need for any blades. This offers the possibility of lower visual impact, greater efficiency and lower costs.

Figure 9: Bladeless wind turbines could be a significant step forward

Downsides? Well the technology isn’t very mature and it may prove difficult to scale up these turbines to the levels seen with HAWT’s. But its good to see this sort of research with people thinking outside of the box. However it also shows why subsidies are necessary, at least so long as we are effectively subsidising other energy sources such as fossil fuels and nuclear.

]]>https://becauseclimate.com/2015/07/22/only-one-earth/
Wed, 22 Jul 2015 19:35:47 +0000meganmartinbhttps://becauseclimate.com/2015/07/22/only-one-earth/We are living in a warming world. The average surface temperature of Earth is increasing at a rate never before seen. In fact, thirteen of the fifteen hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998. This global warming is a result of the release of greenhouse gases by the burning of fossil fuels for human uses. Warming temperatures are not the only consequence of greenhouse gas emissions, sea levels are rising, precipitation patterns are changing, glaciers are melting, and extreme weather events are changing. These changes will lead to food shortages, mass migrations, extinctions, and political and economic instabilities.

So why should we care?

Personally, I consider global warming the biggest problem of our time. The worst-case-scenario changes we could be facing are unprecedented. The science is indisputable, Earth is warming and it is doing so because of human activity. No one can say with 100% certainty what this warming will mean for our planet and all the life forms that inhabit it. I don’t think its worth the risk to continue to emit greenhouse gases in a business-as-usual manner when we are not sure how devastating the consequences could be. Global warming is not a future problem, it is happening right now and we are already feeling the effects of it.

While it may be overwhelming and scary to think about, the good news is that we can do something about it. The Earth is going to continue to warm no matter what we do because of the CO2 (a greenhouse gas) that has already been emitted, but we can limit that warming by reducing future greenhouse gas emissions through policy, efficiency, and renewable energy, but we need to act now.

In December 2015 the United Nations Climate Change Conference will take place in Paris. Here the objective is to create a legally binding international agreement on climate change and is therefore the best chance for an international movement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Because of this, I urge everyone to pay special attention to the news and politics surrounding global warming in the upcoming months because it will impact all of our lives.

There are an infinite number of reasons that we should confront global warming but simply put, climate change should be an immediate concern to every person living on this planet, because there is only one Earth and as far as we know it is the only place we can call home.

A quick watch:

]]>https://biztobiztv.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/short-sited-government-smashes-the-solar-power-industry/
Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:01:14 +0000biztobiztvhttps://biztobiztv.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/short-sited-government-smashes-the-solar-power-industry/In a time when renewable energy sources will become ever more important and a time when the UK could become a world leader the UK Government, who little or nothing about business and have a very short term view have now closed the door on this industry sector.

That leaves the door open to the Chinese and the Germans and other forward thinking countries, it is a sad fact that 50 % of patents come from the UK and our exploitation of these is generally left to the rest of the world.

So today subsidies for many new solar farms are to end under plans being published by the government. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is consulting on plans that would see subsidies for some new solar farms close by 2016.

The government says the move is necessary to protect consumers. The solar industry said subsidies were one of the cheapest ways that the government could meet its climate change targets. Under the government’s plans, so called “small scale” solar farms will no longer qualify for support under a key subsidy mechanism – the renewables obligation – from April next year.

New projects that receive the subsidy may also see the level cut. Energy Secretary Amber Rudd said: “Our support has driven down the cost of renewable energy significantly.

“As costs continue to fall it becomes easier for parts of the renewables industry to survive without subsidies.”. She said in an interview “We can’t have a situation where industry has a blank cheque, and that cheque is paid for by people’s bills. “We can’t have a system, which we’ve had up to now, where there is basically unlimited subsidy headroom for new renewables, including solar.”.

She conceded that subsidies to the nuclear industry, such as those planned for Hinkley Point, would exceed those going to solar, but she said that nuclear provided “a different type of electricity”. “In the winter, at the moment, solar doesn’t really deliver much electricity,” she said.

Small scale solar farms, which are regarded as the cornerstone of the industry, can be up to 25 acres in size and typically power around 1,500 homes. Supporters argue that the growth of these projects has helped to drive down the cost of solar in recent years.

But the government says the amount of support for renewable energy – which is paid by households through their energy bills – is set to rise in the coming years above agreed levels. Subsidies for large scale solar farms were cut in January.

The Solar Trade Association (STA) says the industry accounts for just 6 % of funds paid out under the renewables obligation. It insists that support for solar is one of the cheapest ways that the government can meet its climate change targets.

Jonathan Selwyn, a board member of the STA, said that the subsidy cut would “have a very large impact” on the industry. “Let’s get this straight, in the RO , which is the solar farm’s main support subsidy, it’s costing about three pounds per annum on people’s energy bills – it’s a tiny amount when you compare it with other types of energy, like nuclear for example.”.

He said government support had been “absolutely instrumental in the industry’s success” over the past five years, and that the industry was “tantalisingly close” to being able to operate without any subsidy.

However, he said that investor confidence would inevitably suffer by the consultation. Mr Selwyn called for “a level playing field” for solar in relation to nuclear energy and fracking, in terms of subsidies and planning regulations.

The Welsh government said it was concerned about uncertainty caused by the government’s plans. A spokesperson said the plans have the “potential to put jobs and investment under threat by reducing subsidies to projects already in the pipeline”.

“Again, it reinforces our call to UK government to devolve all energy powers to Wales to ensure that we maximise the economic potential of renewable energy power generation and benefit communities across Wales,” the spokesperson added.

]]>https://standupstaredown.wordpress.com/2015/07/21/letter-to-the-editor/
Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:22:04 +0000Haleyhttps://standupstaredown.wordpress.com/2015/07/21/letter-to-the-editor/Lately, whenever I get riled up about an issue in Vermont, I have found myself writing a letter to the editor in my head. I often fill my letters with zingers and a dash too much snark for them to be publishable, however. My biggest dilemma is that I am usually mid-argument when I realize I don’t actually think the issue is so black and white…few are. Few issues have an easy answer (obviously they would be solved a bit quicker if they did) so I don’t think sending my eager opinions to the small local newspaper is actually useful. So, as this is the place I usually write most of my political opinions, why not post them here?

Here is my first of perhaps many letters to the imaginary editor. A bit of background, there is a lot of contention in Vermont these days about the number of solar arrays being built. These arrays are often 10-20 acres in size and they now line most major roads, sitting in fallow farm fields for the most part. Of course I am a big supporter of alternative energy and solar in general, but it is hard for me to support giant corporations doing anything, even if it is helping Vermont to eventually become carbon neutral. Most of Vermont supports the renewable energy, but many suffer from the age old NIMBY feelings: this is a great idea, but Not In My BackYard.

Dear Sir,

I support the expansion of renewable energy sources throughout the state. Of course, as I am only 21 I am part of the generation that will come to know a new climate with harsher weather patterns and less biodiversity. That said, I urge the State of Vermont to expand its view when it comes to our answers to climate change. Once we have enough solar to power every single home and business in Vermont, what then? We will admire the arrays as we drive our passenger-less SUVs down Route 7? Have we got an answer to all the fossil fuels still needed in the state? It seems that the answer is no (given that only the wealthiest Vermonters will be able to buy solar-electric cars).

Obviously we have no groundbreaking panaceas, so why not turn to what we know? Clean energy is great, but isn’t the short-term answer to reduce the actual amount that we use? Many of the school buses that I see (already paid for with tax dollars) are nearly empty. The school bus is a paid-for right of passage that reduces overall emissions with the draw back of a slightly less comfortable ride. Those who can should weatherize their homes and perhaps think about downsizing. Those with land and time should grow more food to reduce agricultural transportation emissions. And finally, the subsidies directed to vast solar arrays should instead go into making our transportation infrastructure more efficient. With more inter-city buses and a broadly expanded train system, Vermonters would hopefully be less inclined to drive their cars over a long commute, and the infrastructure would encourage tourism.

I do want to stress that I think solar is a good idea, it is just not the final answer, especially when we have to replace antiquated arrays with the new, efficient ones. Many take comfort in the fact that solar replaces coal without contemplating the production pollution descending on rural China (the main producer of panels). Until we discover a saltwater powered engine, we should turn our attention to reducing what we already use. As a society we feed ourselves on the mantra “bigger is always better”, but we need to fundamentally change our frame of mind if we want to see real change.

]]>https://thevisionsocial.wordpress.com/2015/07/21/kelectricpk-khawajamasif-india-is-generating-lowest-renewable-energy-inr-5-05-per-unit-pakistan-is-sleeping/
Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:41:14 +0000thevisionsocialhttps://thevisionsocial.wordpress.com/2015/07/21/kelectricpk-khawajamasif-india-is-generating-lowest-renewable-energy-inr-5-05-per-unit-pakistan-is-sleeping/Madhya Pradesh will get cheapest solar power in the country at the rate of Rs 5.05 per unit on fixed rate for 25 years, a senior Energy Department official said.

“MP Power Management Company has opened the tenders for supply of 300 MW solar power on long term basis recently and has got minimum rate of Rs 5.05 per unit in it,” company’s Managing Director, Sanjay Kumar Shukla.

“It is lowest rate for supply of solar power till date in the country. At present, the state is getting solar power at the rate of Rs 6.50 to Rs 7 per unit as quoted in previous tenders,” he said.

For supply of 300 MW solar power on long term basis, 100 investors had submitted tenders for generation of 3744 MW solar power.

Shukla apprised that decks have been cleared for supply of 300 MW power at lowest rate in the country for 25 years in the state.

He said better atmosphere and transparent process will be made available to investors of solar power generation. Madhya Pradesh is considered as the best for solar power generation.

The bid of Sky Power South East Asia Holding Ltd, Mauritius was found to be the lowest.

Reliance Power, Adani Power, MK, Welspun, Sun Edison and two public sector companies Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Company and NHDC also participated in the bidding.

On the basis of the tender, the state will get 300 MW solar power on fixed rate for 25 years. The supply will begin in next 12 to 18 months.